Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

asstrain wrote

The problem with this definition of communism or socialism is that it can’t possibly mean anything concrete. It simply means what you can project yourself on to. Political ideologies are social constructs that change with the wind. So “true whatever-the-hellism” is mainly a projection.

Because like going with something like the Paris Commune, they still had leaders and elections and that and still produced things. It was an incredibly unique emergency situation like any other war or battle. They really didn’t have deep political ideologues.

But that aside, where else would real communism exist? Well probably just in people’s imaginations of political essentialism.

0

gooey wrote

Anarcho-Communism doesn't necessarily mean no leaders at all.

It rather looks at unjustified hierarchies. If the hierarchy is temporary and they have no authority but just act as a delegate of some sort, that is permissible.

There was no other practical way to coordinate millions of other people, but it was compensated with democratic values, and every person having a say in politics. It was fully participatory, if everyone participates, then forms of domination are abolished.

2

BigGeorge wrote (edited )

It rather looks at unjustified hierarchies. If the hierarchy is temporary and they have no authority but just act as a delegate of some sort, that is permissible.

Then stop calling it anarcho-communism. That has nothing to do with anarchy. Call it Chomskyism or something.

1

Anarcropolis wrote

Anarcho-Communism doesn't necessarily mean no leaders at all.

Anarchy = no leaders

I get what you mean with "temporary hierarchy" but that isn't a leader.

0

asstrain wrote

"I'm inconsistent in my views, and accept hierarchy in that if I like it."

Anarchists, every Goddamn time.

The only solution to Capitalism isn't your Utopianism. It's to develop a class consciousness and let the workers rule themselves. Free from states, free from law, free from tax.

1

gooey wrote

No. Anarchism is about abolishing unjustified hierarchies of domination and exploitation.

It would be best if all hierarchies are abolished but practically in some cases it might be needed.

I know plenty of cooperatives that have elected managers, and they rotate them every week. So every worker becomes a manager at some point, and they all discuss things.

Authority can be kept in check if there is democracy and the hierarchy is temporary.

The FAI zones in Catalonia operated on something like this. Some farms were managed like this, where groups of 10 worked on a farm and they rotated their leaders to avoid them entrenching in their authority.

3

BigGeorge wrote

No. Anarchism is about abolishing unjustified hierarchies

No. It isn't.